Pack it up, thread just got the last post it needed.
In order to make a compatible product, you only need the OGL. All of the rights you need to reprint, expand, and redefine the Pathfinder rules are part of the OGL. The only thing the OGL doesn't allow you to do is claim that you are Pathfinder compatible and put a Pathfinder logo on the product.
So the PCL is a license that grants that. It doesn't restrict the OGL rights except that the product has to be compatible. So the PCL doesn't need to grant the right to copy game mechanics, the OGL already does that.
Now, how much you can change and remain compatible is a little fuzzy. Paizo is the ultimate arbiter of that, since they reserve the right to say no at any time.
So, to reiterate. Things that you can do with the OGL + PCL that you cannot do with the GSL.
- Reprint monster stats from the Bestiary or any other Paizo book.
- Adjust character creation, say by adding Apprentice Levels.
- Reprint Spells and Feats.
- Create a player's guide quick reference, that reprints the rules 100%, but only what's required for a player to get started.
- Create variant and alternate rules.
I'm certain there are far more things that I'm not thinking of. But you are right, the PCL does not grant any of those rights. But the PCL doesn't restrict those rights granted from the OGL. So while the PCL may be functionally the same as the GSL, the PCL + OGL is worlds different.
Copyright does not need to be actively defended, Trademarks do. You can lose Trademarks if you are not aggressive in their defense. Copyrights are yours for a century or more, if you defend them or not.
Showed up to post this, saw it was done already, went back to curbstomping the First Reich in Medieval II.
It's not goal post switching.
At this point I would like to note that the license WotC uses for 3rd party development is more restrictive to those parties in exactly ZERO ways than the license Paizo issues to third party developers.
You said the two companies used practically the same license. I said the license was far more permissive because it also lets you use the OGL.
The Compatibility Logo may only be used under this License in connection with materials you publish under the Open Gaming License 1.0a ("OGL"), a copy of which can be viewed here. You may not use the Compatibility Logo in any way that the OGL prohibits. (Note that you are solely responsible for assuring you use the OGL correctly.) The Compatibility Logo is designated as Product Identity, not Open Game Content, as those terms are defined in the OGL.
So the PCL doesn't need to express any of the rights within the OGL, you have to be using the OGL already to use the PCL. So yes, the things I mentioned are not in the PCL document. But they are effectively part of the PCL. You can't say that the two companies use the same license scheme when they are very different. The license just happens to be in two documents. So if you only compare one of those documents to the GSL, you are getting an incomplete picture.
You can reprint monster stats from either system, but will have to redefine the description of those mechanics. Mechanics are not particularly protected under US law, so Paizo's separate declaration of mechanics being open content is entirely meaningless to begin with, but also not part of the Game Compatability License.
Yes, but the OGL lets you reprint the mechanics for an Aboleth and also call it an Aboleth. That is definitely forbidden under US copyright law, and only allowed through the OGL license.
A judge is actually the final arbiter of that. When all is said and done, what Paizo says is compatible may weigh heavily on his decision, but it's not the end of the line.
Not true. Paizo doesn't need to prove breach in court.
We can terminate this License at any time, at our sole discretion.
So all they have to do is notify the company that they can no longer use the license for a product.
Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.
That's the real key distinction. The PCL does not have this clause. The OGL expressly allows defining, redefining, or altering definitions. Paizo did exactly that when they created Pathfinder.
You seem to think the OGL grants no rights. It does. If it didn't, Wizards would have sued Paizo for copyright infringement long ago. Mechanics may not be copyrighted, but names of creatures are. Aboleth, Otyugh, and a host of other non-mythological monsters would be disallowed under standard copyright terms. Even specific terms like Armor Class and Saving Throw would have had to be changed. So clearly the OGL does grant some actual, measurable rights. And to ignore those rights in comparing those two licenses is being willfully ignorant of the practical reality of a 3PP.
|
Redjack, the issue is simple.
I can publish Pathfinder-compatible material without using the PFCL. I can do so using OGL. I can reference any open content from Paizo products, which is a lot (classes, feats, spells, etc.). There's a license that protects my use of open content, so that I can call reference "Gunsling Grit" or "Piscodaemon" and sleep safely that I didn't infringe somebody's copyright.
I can publish 4E-compatible material without using the GSL. I am doing that under no license of any sort whatsoever, and there's absolutely nothing that tells me if I'm within the lawsuit zone.
Redjack, the issue is simple.
I can publish Pathfinder-compatible material without using the PFCL. I can do so using OGL. I can reference any open content from Paizo products, which is a lot (classes, feats, spells, etc.). There's a license that protects my use of open content, so that I can call reference "Gunsling Grit" or "Piscodaemon" and sleep safely that I didn't infringe somebody's copyright.
I can publish 4E-compatible material without using the GSL. I am doing that under no license of any sort whatsoever, and there's absolutely nothing that tells me if I'm within the lawsuit zone.
technically you can use the OGL to do 4E in the same manner as you can use it for the 1E or BECMI clones.
I did not meant to beat you into submission. I think we may have a fundamental philosophical difference in what we find valuable.
In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, [Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of] the Open Game Content.
For me, the important part of the OGL is the right to create derivative material. Yes, copying things is nice. But being able to remix them is awesome.
Yes, if you create a product that just copies OGL material and contributes no added value, you have made a poor product that should be ignored.
But sometimes there is existing material that does exactly what you need it to do. Paizo does this every time they include a monster from the Tome of Horrors in an adventure path. You claim that is the laziest form of design. I claim that is building on the body of prior work.
Yes, game mechanics aren't subject to copyright. But specific expressions of them are. The OGL lets companies build a common language to use. If I want to write an adventure with psionics, I don't have to re-invent the wheel, I can include the needed mechanics from Dreamscarred Press's version.
Or I could delve into the abandoned 3.X OGL material and convert it to Pathfinder.
I see all sorts of possibilities for publishers. I've seen many of them actually created.
The GSL on the other hand, gives you the right to reference a specific list of terms. You can't modify or redefine them. Once they decide to terminate the license (and they will eventually), you have to basically re-write your product to be generic or use other rules. Open Content is available forever. The only thing Paizo can revoke is their logo.
So I see that as a fundamental difference between the two. The overwhelming numbers of the 3PP who have decided to produce Pathfinder material do too. Even Clark Peterson, lawyer, judge, and game designer, who really wanted to support 4th edition upon release, refused to use the GSL as too restrictive and is now producing Pathfinder material.
technically you can use the OGL to do 4E in the same manner as you can use it for the 1E or BECMI clones.
I look forward to the inevitable 4E clone to arise whenever 5E is released. ;)
Since you're so brilliant deinol, since you know everything....why don't you write the 5th edition yourself.
Since you're so brilliant deinol, since you know everything....why don't you write the 5th edition yourself.
And here the entire point of my argument is that the combined brilliance of many will outshine any one particular genius. The body of Open Content can only improve over time, and will never diminish.
Since you're so brilliant deinol, since you know everything....why don't you write the 5th edition yourself.
Also to add, you probably wouldn't like what I come up with. I'm inclined to go back to the basics and make the game lighter overall. Either do away with feats and just have some basic classes, or do away with classes and have all powers be feat trees.
I would also have the design goal of monsters being no more than 3 lines. Something like:
Dragonborn Mercenary
Defenses 20 hp, 15 AC, 14 Fort, 12 Ref, 10 Will
Attacks +5 sword (1d8+3), +4 bow (1d6+2)
Specials +5 vs Ref Fire Spit (2d6)
So if I were to truly write my own edition, I'd likely re-mix what I felt was best from things like Swords and Wizardry, Fate, and Pathfinder.
Also to add, you probably wouldn't like what I come up with. I'm inclined to go back to the basics and make the game lighter overall. Either do away with feats and just have some basic classes, or do away with classes and have all powers be feat trees.I would also have the design goal of monsters being no more than 3 lines. Something like:
Dragonborn Mercenary
Defenses 20 hp, 15 AC, 14 Fort, 12 Ref, 10 Will
Attacks +5 sword (1d8+3), +4 bow (1d6+2)
Specials +5 vs Ref Fire Spit (2d6)So if I were to truly write my own edition, I'd likely re-mix what I felt was best from things like Swords and Wizardry, Fate, and Pathfinder.
I just don't think this worked, at least not for most people most of the time. In effect this was 4Es design goal. Maybe not quite as simple as this but really close. MMI is full of monsters that are just not that much more complex than this but the problem is everyone thinks they are complete sleepers.
I'd go so far as to argue that they have always thought this way by and large. Its this that drives all the spell like abilities in older editions and the whole meme of Tucker's Kobolds. Monsters that don't do very much are just not very interesting.
Combat light is not really the answer IMO. I'd say this is a do or do not type situation. Either abstract combat out so that its no more then a five minute pretty much narrative system that exists purely because martial conflict exists in stories (for example Call of Cuthulu) or go the other way and make combat as interesting as possible.
The middle ground of slightly shorter and not really engaging is the worst option on the table.
The fact that it seemed to sometimes work in 1E is, I feel, a false positive. A combination of other elements carrying the weight of the system, potential insta death being around every corner which was very exciting so long as long term story was not the goal, the adventures and DMs often went far out of their way to add interesting elements back in where they could (i.e. monster synergies) and finally that we where young and did not have much to compare the system too.
I just don't think this worked, at least not for most people most of the time. In effect this was 4Es design goal. Maybe not quite as simple as this but really close. MMI is full of monsters that are just not that much more complex than this but the problem is everyone thinks they are complete sleepers.
Except 4E was designed so combats would last longer. I'm good with combats being 3-5 rounds lasting no more than 10 minutes. If combats are supposed to be long engaged processes, you need to have a larger variety of powers to use against the players. In fact, in a perfect world they would have a unique action for every round they are expected to live through.
Or I am also good with narrative combats. I really like the back and forth of Dogs in the Vineyard, I wish the system was OGL. On the other hand, I also like more concrete effects. I always loved the sorts of critical tables Role-master had (although little else about the system). That's probably why we use Pathfinder's Critical hit deck. The joys of slicing someone's ear off or getting blood in their eyes are the highlights of our combats.
Anyway, I was just throwing things out there. If I were tasked with making a new edition, I would lean toward light. But I'm good playing more complicated games like Pathfinder or 4E. Both have strengths that I enjoy.
There are plenty of games out there like what you describe. For instance if you want something grittier but still fairly tactical check out Warhammer 3E or possibly Runequest. If you want something gritty, but more rules light Warhammer 2E is pretty solid. If you want something really fast paced, but still potentially quite deadly check out Barbarians of Lemuria (it's free to download). I just ran a session of it the other day, and enjoyed the fact that I was able to do in one session what would have taken me 2-3 sessions of 4E to accomplish.
I just don't think this worked, at least not for most people most of the time. In effect this was 4Es design goal. Maybe not quite as simple as this but really close. MMI is full of monsters that are just not that much more complex than this but the problem is everyone thinks they are complete sleepers.Except 4E was designed so combats would last longer. I'm good with combats being 3-5 rounds lasting no more than 10 minutes. If combats are supposed to be long engaged processes, you need to have a larger variety of powers to use against the players. In fact, in a perfect world they would have a unique action for every round they are expected to live through.
Or I am also good with narrative combats. I really like the back and forth of Dogs in the Vineyard, I wish the system was OGL. On the other hand, I also like more concrete effects. I always loved the sorts of critical tables Role-master had (although little else about the system). That's probably why we use Pathfinder's Critical hit deck. The joys of slicing someone's ear off or getting blood in their eyes are the highlights of our combats.
Anyway, I was just throwing things out there. If I were tasked with making a new edition, I would lean toward light. But I'm good playing more complicated games like Pathfinder or 4E. Both have strengths that I enjoy.
|
Since you're so brilliant deinol, since you know everything....why don't you write the 5th edition yourself.Also to add, you probably wouldn't like what I come up with. I'm inclined to go back to the basics and make the game lighter overall. Either do away with feats and just have some basic classes, or do away with classes and have all powers be feat trees.
I would also have the design goal of monsters being no more than 3 lines. Something like:
Dragonborn Mercenary
Defenses 20 hp, 15 AC, 14 Fort, 12 Ref, 10 Will
Attacks +5 sword (1d8+3), +4 bow (1d6+2)
Specials +5 vs Ref Fire Spit (2d6)So if I were to truly write my own edition, I'd likely re-mix what I felt was best from things like Swords and Wizardry, Fate, and Pathfinder.
Voting Deinol onto the 5e edition D&D design team. Without knowing details your general concept works for me!
Except 4E was designed so combats would last longer.Not my experience, frankly. Combat is quicker in 4e. Not as quick in high Paragon/Epic as it was in Heroic, but still quicker than 3e.
Quicker real time, or quicker number of rounds? I thought rounds were supposed to be quicker to resolve, but it takes more turns to finish things off.
For me, rounds in combat in 4th edition move faster than 3.5.
The combats themselves are longer in 4th edition, again for me and my group. Around 5th level I have seen most combats take almost an hour with a five person group which I feel pretty good about. Playing at 20th level, the average is closer to two hour combats and that seems pretty consistent barring anything else in the encounter that may complicate it, which I don't feel good about.
Kingmaker spoiler:
That fight took no more than two hours at most for my party to beat even without dispel magic. I'm not sure how it would become a seven round hour combat aside from the party simultaneous charging into the following room to add more creatures to the combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we had a split thread option here. It often seems to me we finally get into some of the more interesting debates on page 18 of some long boring edition war thread.
I just don't think this worked, at least not for most people most of the time. In effect this was 4Es design goal. Maybe not quite as simple as this but really close. MMI is full of monsters that are just not that much more complex than this but the problem is everyone thinks they are complete sleepers.Except 4E was designed so combats would last longer. I'm good with combats being 3-5 rounds lasting no more than 10 minutes.
Doable and in some systems absolutely excellent. However I have yet to see this work really well in D&D. As I argued above I don't feel older editions that where faster actually managed to do a good job in this department when actually compared to the modern editions and where it worked it tended to do so because the DMs worked at it to basically complicate simplicity.
The reality, in my experience, is that three ogres in a room getting killed - even if its only 25 minutes to kill them is not very interesting...especially when this is the third room you have killed three ogres in tonight. How this was actually fun when I was 14 years old I'm at a loss to explain...but every time its come up for me in the last 10 years (I convert a fair number of old modules) its only been good when it turns into some kind of running battle or some such...and I think it was only exceptionally good even back in 1E when that sort of thing happened. Fundamentally the problem is simple combats are not very much fun so most of the time there needs to be some other element carrying the weight
If combats are supposed to be long engaged processes, you need to have a larger variety of powers to use against the players. In fact, in a perfect world they would have a unique action for every round they are expected to live through.
Straight up this is why the Monster Vault's are really just so excellent. Its in them that I think 4E monster design finally really hit the mark. Here the monsters really are very well designed to do almost exactly what your contending is ideal. Now its not actually ideal - truth is we want some variance - there are good reasons why minions should just get one attack - makes them simple to run and they don't generally live that long...on the other hadn sometimes its good for them to get one or two other elements as well. Maybe a move power to make them trickier to kill or maybe they blow up when killed which makes them interesting to interact with. Depends on what the DM is doing - sometimes dead simple sometimes a little more complex but only once in a blue moon for very specific minions should they be quite complex. Mooks should get a little more but simplicity for the DM to run still rules the roost here while elites need to have a fair number of 'features' and solo's should expect to live 8 rounds or so and be able to do something new and exciting about five times. Some repetition is necessary for a monster in order to give it 'character' show what its 'thing' is all about but the Solo's also need access to at least one 'game changer' something just outrageous and a couple of gotcha's in order to keep them interesting.
In any case I am very happy with the Monster Vault products in terms of really enhancing what I think 4E really does best which is big 'epic' style combats where it might really take a while to play through them...but they are just packed with interesting elements and you balance it out by having fewer combats over all.
I've generally found you still need about three combats in a day for this to work well, this comes down to healing surges...if you want your group to feel desperate in terms of healing surges you need to make sure that the first two combats get them to really use everything but their daily healing powers. This should have half of them running on fumes in terms of surges by the middle of the third combat.
Note though that the first two are still exciting...there is only so much healing a group can use in a fight so there should be at least a few hard choices during these combats. Also try and avoid really healing heavy groups...they burn through their surges like mad and can't make that third fight while at the same time tending to feel 'grindy' in the first two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Following on from the above.
I'm not actually certain that we get all that much from having simplified monsters. The goal is faster combats, yes?
So do the simplified monsters actually get us there? Now if your doing really long combats and its bothering you I'd actually suggest recording your next few combats and then analyzing what is actually slowing things down. I suspect the answer only comes down to the monsters a few.
In one your DM is taking forever to play tactically well with each monster and, being less familiar with the monsters then the players are with their characters this is really stalling things out.
I think this is really common and I think the game 'suggests' that this is the way it should be played. Its the wrong answer...the DM is NOT playing chess with the players no matter what it looks like. The DM is providing his players with chess problems for them to solve but this goes only one way, not two.
What happens is the DM has all these monsters and in one of these epic 1 1/2 hour combats we actually find out that the DM took like 45 minutes to run 'Team Evil'.
You never want that to happen - the DM should strive to run all of Team Evil in about the same length of time it takes one of his players to run their turn. That may be impossible but that is the goal.
You get there by glancing at the monster glancing at the board and then making a snap decision - don't second guess yourself - don't weigh the options don't think to much at all just do and resolve what happens. Generally the DMs first instinct is not that bad in any case, maybe not perfect but reasonable. If you can do anything less then a solo or elite in a minute or under then that is good. The Solo's or elites can have slightly more though but not a lot - you want them done in 3 minutes maximum so thinking about anything for more then 30 seconds is not a good plan.
I'd make exceptions for only a small handful of monsters. Dragon's, Illithid's. Eye Tyrants, Vampire Lords or really smart NPCs. Only this small handful of baddies should see the DM slow down to mull things over for the length of time a player might take to consider things...each individual DM should have their own list of such monsters as the real 'trigger' for this behaviour is if the DM will stop having fun if he looses a Dragon or whatever to stupid play. Hence this is just a protect the DMs fun caveat but make sure its exceptional not the norm.
If team evil seems to be under performing then you have two options (I'd do both). One is a tactics section that tells the DM what to do for each monster depending on circumstances and highlights whatever synergies the DM is hoping to pull off. This should help to make the monster run real fast so its no go if the DM finds himself rereading the tactics page every time its his turn...enter the session knowing what is on that page and use it just to jog memory. The other, more common way to even things up is just to give team evil more benefits - more levels is common (and is not to bad if you want fewer combats worth more XP) or go into the stat blocks at creation and tweak them up.
Again the goal is to provide your players chess problems - they need to feel they have to play well to win but you need to have the leeway to play a lot more sloppily and still have them hard pressed. I suspect that something like half the groups that complain about how long 4E combats take would not complain if the DM did not have Team Evil taking close to half the length of the combat.
Bringing this back around to why monsters should be complex is because if the DMs job, in combat, is to make things interesting for the players then monsters with powers really helps - the DM makes a snap decision to use one of the powers (probably what appears at the moment to be the best) and throws this zinger at the players. This keeps the players working on 'solving' the chess puzzle on their turn and provides the DM with one of a number of 'mechanical' elements to allow him to keep things interesting without slowing things down.
Note that if the DM is running really fast you actually open up space for the DM to use monster elements that are normally verbotten like heals and such because the rounds should go faster - this does not make such moves ideal in monster design or placement it just makes such options 'less bad' at the table but that is enough to mean that such elements can be in play a little more often without really harming the game.
For me, rounds in combat in 4th edition move faster than 3.5.
The combats themselves are longer in 4th edition, again for me and my group. Around 5th level I have seen most combats take almost an hour with a five person group which I feel pretty good about. Playing at 20th level, the average is closer to two hour combats and that seems pretty consistent barring anything else in the encounter that may complicate it, which I don't feel good about.
I've found 4E to be slower in total time below about 7th, about the same through around 10th and then 3.5 just started to take longer in total time spent on the combat. 4E still takes longer at higher levels then at low but I've just found the kinds of insane interactions that take place in 3.5 to add to the length much more significantly then 4E where powers are just getting a tad more complex and maybe there are a few more per character versus what has become a game about spell and spell like ability interactions combined with both sides desperately tossing tac nukes at each other and trying to make their tac nuke stick while using magical effects to nerf the other sides tac nukes.
Other elements that really play here for me are that buffing could be a big part of 3.5 and that took forever. More importantly, for me, is what I outline above - the DM can run a 4E 15th level monster sloppily and really, really, fast and the system will work fine while 3.5 does not really work as well with sloppy but fast DM play - getting those tac nukes off and recognizing how to side step the players tac nukes is really pretty skill intensive - the DM has to play chess with his players - monsters that don't have counter tactics just stop working after a point - it does not matter how big or nasty the T-Rex is if the players will just fly up in the air and shoot it until dead so it tends to really become a game about trying to pull off coups for both the players and 'team evil'.
In effect the DM can play fast and sloppy for a lot longer in 4E though I do think around 23rd or 24th we do enter a state that is closer to 3rd edition in look and feel where what each side can now do is getting toward 'tac nuke' and its becoming increasingly important for the DM to slow down in order to try and side step such moves.
|
Quicker real time, or quicker number of rounds? I thought rounds were supposed to be quicker to resolve, but it takes more turns to finish things off.Except 4E was designed so combats would last longer.Not my experience, frankly. Combat is quicker in 4e. Not as quick in high Paragon/Epic as it was in Heroic, but still quicker than 3e.
Real time. Probably more rounds, but I don't consider that to be a problem.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RedJack,
You have a lot of misconceptions about the OGL. So many, in fact, that I couldn't possibly take them point-by-point and get anything else done today. But here's the deal.
Our Pathfinder products are published under the OGL. Almost every word in the entire Pathfinder RPG line itself has been declared as Open Game Content, and is thus freely available for republication, modification, etc., by anyone also using the OGL. (Of course, you should check the statements of Open Game Content and Product Identity in each product, as there are a few exceptions, but generally, our mechanics are Open Game Content and our setting material is Product Identity.)
So if you use the OGL yourself, you can reprint and/or modify our stat blocks and other mechanics, because they're OGC.
The OGL, though, does have some important limitations, especially Section 7, which says "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
Because "Pathfinder," "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game", and many of our book titles are trademarked, that means that, using the OGL alone, you're not allowed to mention them.
All the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License really does is serve as "another, independent Agreement" allowing publishers to indicate compatibility with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game trademark, and to use our compatibility logo, and to use the trademarked names of some of our books. Yes, it does have some restrictions about *how* you can use those things, but it does not contain additional restrictions on the Open Game Content itself. (And it actually couldn't even if we wanted it to, because the OGL itself says that "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.")
I'm not actually certain that we get all that much from having simplified monsters. The goal is faster combats, yes?
Well, I also want easier reference to monsters. You can spend more time describing the interesting parts of an adventure if you don't have to spend a page filling in its stats. I also tend to want to have everything I need for an encounter printed out on one sheet. Last night my group (Pathfinder) fought 4 unique monsters, so that ended up at one page per monster. I even cheated and used two 4E monsters to see how that felt. Had to up the damage/quantity of attacks to make it fit, but it still felt like I had more options than I could use during the combat.
I certainly like the idea of giving non-casters plenty of unique options in combat. I actually really like Dragon Age's stunt system, although it takes a little bit to get used to. Instead of saying, "I try to do this maneuver, does it succeed?" Dragon Age says, "You are fighting the monster. If you are lucky, an opportunity to do a maneuver will open up, and you can decide how to take advantage of it."
The only thing I don't like is that since the players completely choose, some choices happen more often than others.
Now I'm thinking of some sort of stunt cards. Where if you get a stunt, draw a card, and it adds 4 random new stunts you can use for that particular opportunity. Kind of like the critical hit deck, but you get to choose which of the effects to do.
But yeah, maybe we should split off into a new thread. I'm not certain where it would belong though. Gamer Talk? Other RPGs?
Your SRD is published under a community use license, (separate from the GCL) by members of your community. Right on, good sir. Right on. The community use license is something I can completely respect, and was an excellent move on your part for a number of reasons.
The SRD you refer to was not published or endorsed by Paizo. Paizo's Pathfinder Reference Document is published by Paizo using only the OGL. (Since they don't need a license to use their own Trademarked logos.) It isn't community driven and is maintained by the amazing web staff at Paizo.
I'll also point out that the OGL you publish your work under seems to be a self-made modification of the original OGL, and that original OGL specifies that any work licensed under it may not make any modifications to the original license. Which I take to mean that since you're not exactly publishing under the actual OGL, you can claim neither the privileges nor protections of it. Of course, this one I'm not wholly certain about.
What modifications to the OGL have they made? Using a text comparison program I couldn't find a single changed word between the original and Paizo's.
Or do you mean that the OGL doesn't allow you to change open content? Because it very explicitly allows you to make derivative works.
I... didn't say they published the SRD. In fact "community use license" pretty strongly shows that I get the idea that it is created and maintained by the community, rather than Paizo.
In fact, I can read very clearly in that first sentence "by members of your community."
I also did not imply endorsement (or at least did not mean to) but did mention the separate license the SRD is published under. Licensing does not mean endorsement, nor did I say it did.
Could you explain exactly what you were trying to say, since it seems very much to me that your post was along the lines of:
No, you're wrong! What you said is correct.
I guess I just don't understand the meaning of your last two paragraphs of that post.
"Your SRD" seemed to mean "Paizo's SRD" which implied an ownership or link that doesn't exist.
"I'm not sure why you don't play it up a bit more." I'm not sure what Paizo is supposed to be playing up. The fact that they have a community use license that anyone can use? Or the fact that someone else happened to use that license to make an SRD? In general, Paizo wants to point people to their own PRD.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
...any publisher is welcome to declare their original game mechanics "closed content" but the law does not actually support that. Insane, I know. You can legally protect a second and a half jingle for some crappy product, but not mechanics of a game.
While copyright law does not cover the mechanics of a game, it does cover the expression of those mechanics. For example, you can make a game that works just like Monopoly, but you can't just republish the Monopoly rules in that game—you have to rewrite them in your own words.
And your idea about "the law" not supporting the notion of closed content isn't quite right. There's copyright law, and there's contract law. The OGL is a contract, and if you accept that contract, it gives you some rights, while potentially removing other rights.
I'll further note that the way you define product identity is... exceedingly vague.... You seldom specifically claim anything as a trademark, meaning that potentially anything found within your books could be claimed as an "unregistered trademark."
If we didn't put a ™ or ® on it, or list it as a trademark in our legal text, it's not a trademark.
What is a "concept?"
We don't use the term "concept" in our statements of Product Identity or Open Content. (The OGL default language does, but we don't.) In *most* of our books, those statements are as follows:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open
Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
(Elements that are in the public domain or have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content,
as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be
reproduced in any form without written permission.
I'll also point out that the OGL you publish your work under seems to be a self-made modification of the original OGL.
We publish under the OGL version 1.0a, just like everybody else. The only modifications made to it are the adjustments to the Section 15 Copyright Notice that are mandated by Section 6. (Are you confusing the statements of Open Game Content and Product Identity with the OGL itself? Sections 1 and 8 of the OGL allow publishers to essentially make their own statements of Product Identity and Open Game Content.)
Change a name, flub a description, even list HP before AC instead of after, and I'm within the law.
You may or may not be within the law. In a court case, context counts. But if you use the OGL, you know you're safe.
Whether I use the OGL or not, you could pursue me for using the names of your monsters, under the very letter of the license you have written now, and how broadly you have chosen to define "product identity."
It's pretty clear that our Product Identity doesn't include monster names (unless you mean proper names). Honestly, short of color-coding each word in our books, I'm not sure how much clearer we could make our statements.
Of course, one could publish a book using neither your license nor the OGL that can actually do both entirely legally, under "fair use."
Fair use is not as broad as most people would like to think. But I can tell you that if you put something like the Pathfinder logo on that book, you'd certainly be at risk. Use the OGL and the Compatibility License, though, and you're golden.
In addition, because your license is vague and poorly worded in many cases...
So far, the only things you've identified as vague are within the default Product Identity definition of the OGL, which we don't actually use. Would you like to be more specific? To be clear, we're talking about the license on this page.
Your SRD is published under a community use license, (separate from the GCL) by members of your community.
Your terminology is so confused here I don't know what you're talking about. We don't have an SRD (System Resource Document)—Wizards did. We have a PRD (Pathfinder RPG Reference Document). It's published under the OGL, and is not directly related to our Community Use Policy in any way. And though our community has re-presented it in some places, we published it. (I'm also not clear why you insist on using "GCL" to refer to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License, which many people abbreviate as PCL.)
"Product Identity" is redefined by Paizo, meaning that the fundamental meaning of the document has been altered in that "product Identity" in the 13 separate instances no longer means the same thing. This is an alteration of the license.
"open content" is added to the definitions, which is a further alteration of the document.
(d) "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;
Open Game Content and Product Identity are both defined in the OGL.
Or you confusing Paizo's declaration of Open Content and Product Identity, which is expressly required by the OGL, as a redefinition of the OGL itself?
That isn't part of the license. It is above it, or on the title page of books. That is where they are clearly indicating which parts of the work are Open Game Content, or Product Identity, as required by the license itself.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can argue all you want about how you can use RPG game mechanics without the OGL, or whatever. Sure you can, but it's not a discussion I care to participate any further in, because frankly, doing so is, in my opinion, idiocy. The OGL, while admittedly not the most well-written legal document ever ("potation"? Really?) is free, irrevocable, and, in my opinion, offers a heck of a lot more than it asks. Speaking as somebody who has built a very successful business relying of it, I think it's fantastic, and to anybody interested in publishing RPGs, I say you should check it out.
Earlier, you appeared to take my non-comment on the GSL as some kind of indication that it's value-equivalent to the OGL. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't even close. However, I'm not going into depth on that, because I stopped thinking about it ages ago, and no longer have a grasp of the details. Here's what I do remember: the first version had three major deal-breakers for me, and only one of those was fixed in the revision. I no longer recall what those were, because it's now about as relevant to me as a two-year old weather report, but if you asked me if I thought it was wise to build a business around it, I'd strongly suggest you don't do so without some serious consideration of your other options.
